A recent US publication seems to state in no uncertain terms that China's territorial ambitions are somewhat worrying.
See below where part of the material is reproduced.
The US trade publication Defense News last week posted a video on its blog from a US Naval Institute conference featuring an extraordinarily blunt assessment of China's maritime strategy and ambitions from US Navy Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for US Pacific Fleet. The moderator describes Fanell as the 'top intelligence officer' in the Pacific Fleet, which means he is advising some of the US military's senior decision-makers on China's military strategy and capability.
Fanell's language is, well, bracing. He calls China 'hegemonic' and says it displays 'aggression'; he claims China 'bullies adversaries' and that it has become a 'mistrusted principal threat'. Watch Captain Fanell's presentation from about 21 minutes into the above video, or read below for some more select quotes:
- '(China's) expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet.'
- 'The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare...Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet.'
- On China Marine Surveillance, which supervises and patrols China's claimed maritime territory: 'If you map out their harassments you will see that they form a curved front that has over time expanded out against the coast of China's neighbours, becoming the infamous nine-dashed line, plus the entire East China Sea...China is negotiating for control of other nations' resources off their coasts; what's mine is mine, and we'll negotiate what's yours.'
- 'China Marine Surveillance cutters have no other mission but to harass other nations into submitting to China's expansive claims...China Marine Surveillance is a full-time maritime sovereignty harassment organisation'.
Northern and Western Australia has embraced Chinese businesses [mostly state owned enterprises] to invest in resource development, including land development. Are we adequately assessing the longer term risks versus the shorter term gains, especially in light of assessments such as that above?
Many say it is the same as Japanese investment in the period 1960 - 1980. But in those times, it was private capital, not government capital that was taking the risk.
The issue of Chinese investment is something to consider, especially in light of security assessments and I have no doubt that the debate will continue.
With Chinese New Year rapidly approaching, and a strong Chinese influence in the development of the NT over the past 150 years, we have definitely benefitted from the people of Chinese ethnicity in the NT as well as in cities like Darwin, and there is a strong Chinese influence locally......for the better.
BUT......private citizens are not the same as a government, in most people's view.